• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Velo d’Or 2023

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who will win?

  • MVDP

    Votes: 63 37.3%
  • Vingo

    Votes: 26 15.4%
  • Roglic

    Votes: 13 7.7%
  • Pog

    Votes: 56 33.1%
  • Remco

    Votes: 5 3.0%
  • It's over. It absolutely, positively, definitely has to be MVDP

    Votes: 3 1.8%
  • Ok, they gave it to Cringegard, like I give a ***

    Votes: 2 1.2%
  • Froome

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rackham

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Netserk

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • Total voters
    169
Vingegaard has practically had the best possible stage race season with only 1 big win, MvdP on the other hand only has his three big wins and a 2nd place in Ronde.
The only way in which 'practically the best possible' holds true, and thereby the only reason to put Vingegaard above/at the same level as Van der Poel, is if you a) value Tour-Vuelta equal to Giro-Tour (I'll return to that later) and b) treat this Vuelta as amounting to a victory. But b) just isn't how that works. History doesn't care about how you got second, history cares about the fact that you didn't win, and does so by largely ignoring your second place (unless you're Poulidor or Fignon). I can see an argument for valuing Vingegaard's second place more highly than most other second places, but it just isn't a win, and without the GT double it is by definition not the best possible stage race season. I also don't think the Itzulia and Dauphiné wins against weak opposition matter too much (nobody will remember this season for those), especially when Pogacar walloped him in Paris-Nice which kind of shatters the aura of perfection.

Meanwhile, Van der Poel is one place in Ronde away from practically the best classics season possible. In fact, had he pulled it off, it would have been the best non-Merckx classics season ever. If Vingegaard had pulled off the Vuelta win, it would still have fallen well short of Coppi and Roche too as far as GT doubles are concerned. Not to mention that the Giro+Tour double is IMO clearly harder than the Tour+Vuelta double, so you could argue that Hinault, Indurain and Pantani all beat him too. In fact, I would argue that you need the Giro+Tour double for the perfect stage racing season... which means Vingegaard was only on course for the second-best possible stage racing season - and missed. Not as impressive. Heck, Froome would have done Tour+Vuelta+Dauphiné in 2016 without the Formigal ambush, and I don't remember anyone talking about him missing out on a near-perfect stage racing season. Does Itzulia really make that much of a difference compared to that season?

Finally, Van der Poel got three-quarters of the way to his perfect season in terms of big wins, whereas Vingegaard only got halfway. That also matters a lot. Yes, Vingegaard can't get to any sort of quarters, but does that mean that Van der Poel winning three big one-day races rather than two should count for nothing? It's just a lot easier to be one big win away from the perfect stage racing season than it is to be one big win away from the perfect classics season, simply because you only need to land one big win for the former.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SafeBet and KZD
and without the GT double it is by definition not the best possible stage race season.
Duh. It would include 2 big wins if he had done the double, so that isn't in the set of stage race seasons with only 1 big win. I wrote that he practically had the best possible stage race season with only 1 big win.

EDIT: I'd argue only Merckx's 1969 season surpasses this season in that regard.
 
Last edited:
The difference between Ronde and the Vuelta is that Van der Poel was clearly the second strongest rider in Belgium, while Vingegaard was arguably the strongest rider in Spain, and he only lost the race because the team decided to freeze the GC.

Did Froome look dominant in the Vuelta he lost? No. Neither in the Tour he won that year.

I don't think it's an award for who gathered the best results on paper. I think it's an award for the best rider on the road that year.
 
Both Rogla and Jonas knew what they had to do, win Vuelta. They both failed to do that. So they are now out of contention for this years edition. Better luck next year. Mathieu was more fruitful i achieving such goals and as such he is now ahead.

P.S. Now they can still give it to somebody else, as it's not like they haven't made mistakes in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
For the Vélo d'Or, I'd take a dominant Tour over two monuments. And when it comes to crowning the best cyclist of the year, his Vuelta was more impressive than most victories.

The thing is that while Vingegård's Tour win was dominant so were Van der Poel's MSR and especially his World Championships win and if I am not mistaken the Velo d'Or also takes into account non-road cycling races so that also plays into Van der Poel's hands with his CX world title.

Plus, I don't think Vingegård was clearly stronger than Roglič in this Vuelta, not that it matters much because none of them actually won.
 
Duh. It would include 2 big wins if he had done the double, so that isn't in the set of stage race seasons with only 1 big win. I wrote that he practically had the best possible stage race season with only 1 big win.
But Tour + two big 7 one-week races isn't that special in recent times - Bernal in 2019, Froome in 2013, Wiggins in 2012, Evans in 2011 makes four in the preceding 13 years (12 if you don't count 2020, which had Paris-Nice and Dauphiné as the only big one-week races that didn't overlap with the Tour). Clearly, none of those seasons are anywhere near what Van der Poel has done this year. How does a second place at the Vuelta bridge a gap that big?
 
But Tour + two big 7 one-week races isn't that special in recent times - Bernal in 2019, Froome in 2013, Wiggins in 2012, Evans in 2011 makes four in the preceding 13 years (12 if you don't count 2020, which had Paris-Nice and Dauphiné as the only big one-week races that didn't overlap with the Tour). Clearly, none of those seasons are anywhere near what Van der Poel has done this year. How does a second place at the Vuelta bridge a gap that big?
Because it isn't about how many points you gather.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Hard to say: MVDP, Vinge and Pog have been spectacular. Pog's spring was just incredible and he will probably win Lombardia, Vinge showed dominance in Basque, Dauphine and the Tour, and a high level in the Vuelta. MVDP spring was also incredible and then he won the Worlds in spectacular style. I probably give the edge to MVDP but I wouldn't protest that much if Vinge or Pog wins it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
And had he ridden a second GT and performed like Vingegaard did in the Vuelta it would have been comparable.
Froome's 2013 is worth like, what, two-thirds of Van der Poel's 2023? Then you'd need to value an unwon Vuelta about the same as Van der Poel's WCRR victory to put that season (and thereby also Vingegaard's 2023) above Van der Poel's 2023. I'm sorry, but wins take precedence over how you rode. Take the 2000s Giri, for example. The 2002 Giro had the two most recent winners (Garzelli and Simoni) pulled out with a positive test while in pink, then Casagrande (probably the strongest remaining climber) disqualified, then Evans bonked and Hamilton got a hunger knock on the final mountain stage. All five of those needed to happen for Savoldelli to win the race, yet nobody would value that win the same as/lower than, say, Simoni's second place in the epic 2005 Giro. And that's talking about as asterisked a Giro as you're going to get this side of the farcical helicopter TT.
 
And while you bring Froome '13 up, keep in mind that he won Vélo d'Or that year. Cancellara didn't make the top-3.
... finishing behind a Sagan who got smashed by Cancellara in Ronde and whose season highlights were Gent-Wevelgem and the points classification at the Tour. Do you really think that order was a fair reflection of the 2013 season? If not, then how does it reinforce your argument?
 
The second place closest to this one was Lemond in the 1985 Tour. Had he been 8 seconds from Hinault, I think his performance there would have ranked quite highly in the context of cyclist of the year.
... finishing behind a Sagan who got smashed by Cancellara in Ronde and whose season highlights were Gent-Wevelgem and the points classification at the Tour. Do you really think that order was a fair reflection of the 2013 season? If not, then how does it reinforce your argument?
It tells me that the Tour matters a lot in this context, and that Cancellara skipped the Tour that year. It also tells me that you sell that season of Sagan short. He had 22 victories, and - as I have pointed out - performances where he lost that also contributed to the quality of his season.
 
Last edited:
In one part I'm really wondering how much we're trying to be consistent with previous Velo d'Or and how much we wanna break away from it and give the award like we think it should be given.

I do really think there's a huge amount of popularity in it and that's applied really inconsistently
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
The second place closest to this one was Lemond in the 1985 Tour. Had he been 8 seconds from Hinault, I think his performance there would have ranked quite highly in the context of cyclist of the year.

It tells me that the Tour matters a lot in this context, and that Cancellara skipped the Tour that year. It also tells me that you sell that season of Sagan short. He had 22 victories, and - as I have pointed out - performances where he lost that also contributed to the quality of his season.
Sagan had more cheap wins that year than any other year - seven stages between the USA Pro Challenge and the Tour of Alberta with freaking Luka Mezgec as his main sprint opposition in both, for starters. His performances in big races where he lost also weren’t that impressive - losing the sprint to Ciolek in Sanremo, getting smashed by Cancellara in E3, getting smashed by Cancellara again in Ronde. Really only his Strade second was a race where he looked really impressive without winning. If you really think that season was worth more than an E3-Ronde-Roubaix triple, then there is little point in continuing this discussion, because nobody but the most diehard Sagan fan is going to agree with you on that and rightly so because it’s a p*sstake.
 
The second place closest to this one was Lemond in the 1985 Tour. Had he been 8 seconds from Hinault, I think his performance there would have ranked quite highly in the context of cyclist of the year.

It tells me that the Tour matters a lot in this context, and that Cancellara skipped the Tour that year. It also tells me that you sell that season of Sagan short. He had 22 victories, and - as I have pointed out - performances where he lost that also contributed to the quality of his season.

Lemond was NEVER in position to win in 1985

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZY9287pYZM


He never had a big lead on the Luz Ardiden stage. It was only 1:15 at the top of the Tourmalet. That was the gap at the finish as well. A CBS cameraman was wrong when he told Lemond Hinault was several minutes behind
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Sagan had more cheap wins that year than any other year - seven stages between the USA Pro Challenge and the Tour of Alberta with freaking Luka Mezgec as his main sprint opposition in both, for starters. His performances in big races where he lost also weren’t that impressive - losing the sprint to Ciolek in Sanremo, getting smashed by Cancellara in E3, getting smashed by Cancellara again in Ronde. Really only his Strade second was a race where he looked really impressive without winning. If you really think that season was worth more than an E3-Ronde-Roubaix triple, then there is little point in continuing this discussion, because nobody but the most diehard Sagan fan is going to agree with you on that and rightly so because it’s a p*sstake.
Netserk joining the dark side and implicitly supporting Valverde>Nibali propaganda

I feel betrayed
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sandisfan
PYU4bGECK2mtgzv25BXLJZ-970-80.jpg.webp